I didn't know that "strawman" was the new "terrorist".

"under your rules of torture he should have been to see what militias might be providing support."
-
Your strawman is false no mater how many times you repeat it.

Nice try. Your still wrong about torture your just to emotionally invested to admit it. We are talking about peoples lives here. Not zoo animals. No analogy can negate the fact that Mr McVeigh was a terrorist whether stupid or not and under your rules of torture he should have been to see what militias might be providing support.

"Analogies are supposed to be used to illustrate a point not as evidence or proof of your point. You didn't prove anything."
-
The analogy was used to to explain to you what a strawman was, because it is obvious you don't know.

Analogies are supposed to be used to illustrate a point not as evidence or proof of your point. You didn't prove anything. McVeigh was a terrorist who attacked America. I am not sure how talking about animals changes that fact except to divert the issue.

"An animal analogy is the focus of your reasoning?"
-
It was simple enough for you to understand...very difficult to draw a picture for you on this blog or I would have.

"Does God split terrorist hairs too or is that just you?"
-
Ask him.

An animal analogy is the focus of your reasoning? They both (McVeigh's Militia and Al-Queda) committed terrorist attacks on our country and it doesn't require any kind of absurd analogy to understand.

Whether or not they were stupid terrorist doesn't really matter because the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians is what terrorists do, the excuses they conjure up don't really matter because the end result is the same: fear and terror.

Does God split terrorist hairs too or is that just you?

“How do we know their wasn't actionable intelligence if we didn't torture him? Repeating "strawman" over and over doesn't make it so -- repetition is not reason.”
-
The strawman is your insinuation that the use of waterboarding on McVeigh should be alright with those who have opined it was ok for those attacking our country (Al-Qaeda). The same simplistic strawman analogy could be stated that is should be ok to shoot an animal in a zoo because we do in the wild; hence the strawman of “well if you oppose shooting them in captivity you should oppose doing it in the wild”. One action does not correlate to the other, as is the case in your assertion of McVeigh.

“detonating a truck bomb that blasts the front of a building off killing innocent children isn't meant to instill fear and terror. It was a sign of love. Now who is being naive.”
-
It would be you. The two idiots involved didn’t know there was a daycare there. Their reason, in their tiny little minds was revenge…but please don’t believe what I write check the facts out on your own.

You are so right RAF, detonating a truck bomb that blasts the front of a building off killing innocent children isn't meant to instill fear and terror. It was a sign of love. Now who is being naive. How do we know their wasn't actionable intelligence if we didn't torture him?

Repeating "strawman" over and over doesn't make it so -- repetition is not reason.

“Timothy McVeigh. He was a terrorist plain and simple. So, should we not have tortured him to see if he and the others involved had planned on or planted more bombs. He murdered children too but I didn't hear anyone arguing for torture then? That is disingenuous.”
-
Let’s discuss your strawman of Tim McVeigh. First, he did kill people. To suppose he was a terrorist diverts from his original reason; it was not to terrorize he was after revenge for what he believed were crimes of the US government in such places as Waco. He was arrested and in custody by law enforcement for other crimes before being implicated in the case of the bombing. For your strawman to have any correlation would require actionable intelligence preceding the incident of a planned attack and actionable intelligence after the attack for more incidents. This is the reason your strawman fails. The actions taken by the past administration were with forethought and reason (you don’t have to agree with the reason) it was not done arbitrarily.

The actions taken at bequest of the administration in form of memos was not haphazard or without consultation from the Justice department (yes, still executive), and with senior members of the respective committees from the house/senate (legislative). To arbitrarily seek guidance or advice from the judicial branch would negate the judicial ability later if required in any proceedings; how far does the judiciary branch recuse after giving advice? The judiciary was used to stem some decisions the last administration made; thus reflecting a true checks and balance. To include them during the decisions would negate their actions when truly needed; not allowing checks and balance. No mater how clear a law is drafted and passed there will always be interpretation to its meaning the same for memos and executive orders. Reflection and hind sight allow us to learn and progress as a nation. No decision made by any administration will be perfect in the eyes of every person, lawyer, or judge. In respect to the actions that got us to this point, inaction would have been a far worse choice.

RAF, eloquent post and an excellent point.

My only counter is that generally there has been a lengthy legal debate in the judicial system (and other branches of government) before abridgment of our rights; e.g. in the case of the First Amendment some of the highlights of just the last century were Whitney v. California (and Brandeis' brilliant dissenting concurrence), Schenck v. United States (restricting free speech), the Smith Act (legislative), Brandenburg v. Ohio (loosening the restrictions of Schenck), etc.

Many of the current and previous (Obama, Bush, Clinton in particular) administrations' actions rely on executive orders, signing statements, or memos generated by the Justice Department and shared only within the Executive branch; the exception to this rule was that anything relating to CIA activities also was shared as required by law with a few Congress members on the Intelligence Subcommittees. There have been very few external checks and to date little balancing performed by the Legislative or the Judicial. While part of this is the natural ebb and flow of power between the three branches, it seems to me that members of all stripes within the Legislative have abrogated some of their responsibilities while the Executive (Bush and Obama in particular) assumes broad new powers to dictate its will; this interchange of power is occurring partly under the guise of external threats.

Prior to 9/11 the threat was actually internal or have we forgotten Timothy McVeigh. He was a terrorist plain and simple. So, should we not have tortured him to see if he and the others involved had planned on or planted more bombs. He murdered children too but I didn't hear anyone arguing for torture then? That is disingenuous.

The problem with torture is that terrorist could simply recruit masochists and problem solved.

“If we radically alter the balance of powers within the three branches of government; if we passively give up any of our enumerated rights; if we change who we are, what we stand for, and how we conduct ourselves, who won the war on terror?”
-
I don’t see a degree of or need to alter the balance of the three branches; if the three respect the integrity of the other two and do not go beyond their authority granted by law [infringing on the other two].
*
As to the enumerated rights have we not already abridged them? There is no true freedom of speech; this was constrained from our own laws and not a result by hostile actions toward us. We as a nation are constantly changing in attitudes, areas of interest, altering values, and direction of policies. These changes have been more reflected from internal debate and strife then of an external threat. If we are willing to change from an internal perspective yet remain stringent that an external influence shall have no influence is this not counter to our ability to progress as a nation? To pretend that an external threat that used our borders and laws against us will not cause a change in our system is naive.
*
It is not if we will change, that has already happened. It is how we arise from the change and to what lengths we will go to ensure this mistake does not happen again. That will determine if we learned and progressed or succumbed to preconceived restraint from an ideological approach that does not fully recognize we must change as the world around has already done so.

When you sink to their level you are worse than they are because you have pretended to be better.

Same question, rephrased, in response to private question:

Do we let them impose their values, their terror, their torture upon us so that we act in kind?

Or do we impose our values upon them?

... and now is as good a time as any to apply checks and balances. Should Obama & Biden retain all of the executive branch power that Bush & Cheney obtained? I hardly think so. Should we not review what we have done and determine -- dispassionately -- what works and what does not? Should the vast violations of the 4th Amendment remain unchallenged? We all agree that this is a new type of threat; how we ultimately defeat it speaks directly to our character as a people and just how strongly we really cherish our rights and our system of government.

Hamilton in Federalist 8 wrote: "Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct" and warned:

"The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power."

A direct question will follow; I am not claiming this has happened but in my opinion we find ourselves on the proverbial slippery slope:

If we radically alter the balance of powers within the three branches of government; if we passively give up any of our enumerated rights; if we change who we are, what we stand for, and how we conduct ourselves, who won the war on terror?

It is also disingenuous to obfuscate the reason we are having the debate. The reason the combatants are in this situation is one our country has never seen before; we are the victims in this new game not the instigators. We are fighting an enemy that is not part of a state or country; war/conflict the Geneva Convention and the Treaties were not written of. This clandestine militant was living within our own boarders with plans devised outside our boarders answering to a structure with no ties to an organized government. Members of this same militia are spread all over the world using laws that were never meant to defend them as an obstacle to their defeat. And the best answers provided here by the opposition is we must follow laws and treaties that were written without these situations in mind. I can see we will never agree on the justification. I am thankful those in charge of our government at the time took the steps required to engage as needed.

What really ticks me off about our government is how we cannot keep a secret! "Torture" if you have to but dont let the world know. At least for 20 years or so. Then all the libs and bleeding hearts dont have to step up on thier soapboxes and spout off about how horrible it is.

I think that there has been some form of due process but that it is a much weaker form than that to which we are accustomed. Certainly, American citizens within our own legal system are afforded the most generous rights in the world and your point is well taken.

Very early on, the "public" debate was whether or not captured combatants in Afghanistan should be afforded habeas corpus as it would be American soldiers capturing people upon whom we had not declared war; in other words, did our law of the land extend to American-occupied soil? It was decided via Bush Justice department and White House memoranda that captured combatants should not be afforded habeas corpus and this in turn led to the present discussion on the applicability and limits of international treaties of which we are signatories.

My point is that it is disingenuous to conflate America holding herself to a higher standard against the despicable actions of the 9/11 terrorists, i.e. to what "standard" were they holding themselves? Of course America has never done such a blatant terror-inducing sneak attack during peace time. Our uniformed military prides itself on being defensive in nature; even our peace-time clandestine and covert operations are meant to maintain or preserve a status quo as opposed to sparking wider wars.

Holding ourselves to a higher standard is learning from our own actions as well as the actions of other countries; there is no need to compare our actions to those of terrorists nor, in my opinion, should we deign to lower ourselves to such a level.

joeflint, I do see your point. At times the behavior of an authoritarian regime and democracy are similar. The differences occur with due process. China and America both put people to death for crimes, however, one does it after a long arduous process and the other does not. This process is what separates democracy from tyranny and is why torture in these circumstances is so wrong. There was no due process on either side.

"three examples of sanctioned violence against known innocents: The Trail of Tears; national guard shooting mining protesters (Ludlow Massacre); and the Dresden firebombings."
-
Yes they were. And?

OK, there is quite a bit of disingenuous arguing of late. RAF, just three examples of sanctioned violence against known innocents: The Trail of Tears; national guard shooting mining protesters (Ludlow Massacre); and the Dresden firebombings. We as a society and as a country have learned from those actions. darwin & pharm, there is a legal distinction between murder and manslaughter: the government has determined that certain deaths were homicides; despite the degrading and despicable actions (and even the likely outcome of such), the intent has yet to be determined in a court of law (military or civilian). Likely, no one willingly would sacrifice their military career to rough up and/or interrogate a prisoner which is why the legal basis for such treatment was so sought. Prisoners roughed up in the field have less rights (if any) as opposed to prisoners who are safely detained within a prison; the legal and military basis for that distinction is hopefully obvious.

RAF no one denies that these people did horrible things. What makes them horrible are their actions. Just like all murderers they must be brought to justice and not use it as an excuse to be murderers ourselves.

"I thought we were America - are we not the good guys? Do we not hold ourselves to a higher standard?"
-
We do. I don't recall "American" [Government] hi-jack a plane full of people and fly it into a building full of more people. Nor have they filmed the beheading of other countries journalists.

Prisoners being beaten to death, strangled, left to die outside of hypothermia, and waterboarding are torture no matter which dictionary you use. The other degrading things done are illegal according to the Geneva Conventions, the UN, and the rest of civilized society, including the laws of the United States.

Can we move this story off the page? It's obvious the webster's definition of "torture" is NOT what was being done. The point is moot. And anyone who wants to debate the issue further is willingly misinformed.

When Obama suspended military commissions his administration stated it would give them time to, "review the military commission process, generally, and the cases currently pending." The New York Times according to the Justice Department," If restored the system would likely include changes, particularly ones to afford greater due process to the accused." It will be interesting to see how many of these cases will have torture raised in them.

Sorry but "May" in the title and "on the table" do not in any way represent certitude. Military action against Iran is also on the "table" but that does not mean it is certain. Maybe we should wait until it actually happens to condemn? Or, we could torture them to get to the truth?

RAF - I thought we were America - are we not the good guys? Do we not hold ourselves to a higher standard?

"The whole article is speculation."
-
I see you did not read the article...

"In Congressional testimony on Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, “The commissions are still very much on the table.”

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts

Its just speculation. The whole article is speculation. It hasn't happened yet. Way to divert that issue time and again.

As the world turns....."The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/pol...

This is how Britain obtained reliable, actionable intelligence during and immediately after WWII. Today's "ticking time bomb" scenario is nowhere near the existential threat of an all-out world war...

http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/bad-nenndor...

On a related note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_E...
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p1...

And fifty years earlier it was not official, legalized, or sanctioned policy either...

"Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery murder and torture against our men nothing can justify or will be held to justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army." -- Henry Clarke Corbin, Adjutant General U.S. Army, cable dispatch to American-occupied Phillipines during the 1901-2 "water cure" scandal. "Correspondence Relating to the War with Spain" page 1328.

I see that Sean Hannity is all talk thus far too; hopefully he remains sensible and does not subject himself to "fraternity pranks".

RetiredAirForce, I think the article makes the point that they were not practitioners of any training but clinical observers. They "misrepresented" their waterboarding experience to the point it was called, "dangerous and unreliable." What they got out of Abu Zubadayah after 83 waterboardings was crap, costing the government millions to track down, leading to nothing the FBI didn`t already have

"RetiredAirForce** stifle"
-
Great retort. Do you have anything of substance to add?

RetiredAirForce** stifle

“"But it turns out neither Mitchell or Jessen had any experience in conducting actual interrogations before the CIA hired them.”
-
Again, training and teaching in/of SERE covers what your story disputes. Were they CIA interrogators, no, and they never were claimed to be. But that is far from having no experience. If nine people on the Supreme Court all trained and screened at the highest levels can’t agree on cases of law, do you really wonder why we both see this differently.

ABC News, 4/30/09, Waterboarding, Interrogations; The CIA`s $1,000 A Day Specialists. "But it turns out neither Mitchell or Jessen had any experience in conducting actual interrogations before the CIA hired them. The CIA came to learn that the two psychologists waterboarding "expertise" was probably "misrepresented", making it dangerous and unreliable" Col. Steven Kleinman, Air Force interrogator, "They went to two individuals who had no interrogation experience. They are not interrogators."

“when Mitchell arrived and took over questioning of Abu Zabudyah, the FBI agent in charge asked him about his experience. Mitchell said it was his first interrogation. neither he nor Jessen had ever done any.”
-
The FBI agent you quote did not provide Mitchell as the person who said this, he quoted only “the contractor”; not a name. This account from a recent story he (Soufan) was describing that occurred 7 years ago. The writers of the story then say the “contractor” was identified by other un-named sources as Mitchell…not very compelling to me. Jessen was never mentioned in the story. Both of the men are prior military officers with experience in the SERE area. If you really think they would never, ever, have been involved at anytime in an interrogation there is nothing I can say to change your mind. But then neither of us have witnessed them fire a gun so I guess it is safe to say they have never done that either.

RetiredAirForce, when Mitchell arrived and took over questioning of Abu Zabudyah, the FBI agent in charge asked him about his experience. Mitchell said it was his first interrogation. neither he nor Jessen had ever done any. Newsweek 4/25/09, "We Could Have Done It The Right Way"

"As for the two trainers, yes they were with the SERE, anti-interrogation training, but when the government hired them to train interrogators, neither one had ever done a real interrogation."
-
Again, speculation and not fact.

You see a long time ago I worked for a security company and had to put myself between a young woman and several Marines who thought it was perfectly acceptable to grope her. They were going to fight me save for another Marine who immediately came to my aid and to be quite frank he would never talk like these guys do. He was disciplined and after 9/11 he said our response should be "measured". I have never heard him speak poorly of any President or any commander above his rank. So, you see I don't deride everyone in the military.

RetiredAirForce, you are right some of what I say is opinion. In my opinion, the guards had to be trained unless the interrogarors are with the prisoners 24/7. How else do you sleep deprive for so many days, the guards have to know what is going on, what to do. As for the two trainers, yes they were with the SERE, anti-interrogation training, but when the government hired them to train interrogators, neither one had ever done a real interrogation. They had to learn on the job, as they trained. There is a difference between half-drowning a trainee that can have the exercise stopped whenever he wants, and a detainee. It is so dangerous you have to have a doctor ready to perform a tracheotomy if the subject stops breathing. We will never agree about this, but the Supreme court has ruled legal or illegal combatants cannot be abused. They are not to be touched except to be moved from one place to another if they refuse. That is not my opinion, it is the Courts. Again, in my opinion, if the Justice department memos had been out when England went to trial, she could have been freed. It is an injustice to sentence her to years in jail and let those that tortured, murdered, prisoners go free, or be restricted for 60 days.

"The two guys teaching the CIA had no experience, "
-
You just cant stop stating your opinion as fact and again you are wrong; big surprise. Both of the people you refer to are prior military officers with past experience in SERE.

The two guys teaching the CIA had no experience, and were drawing down $1000 a day.

“teach the "enhanced" interrogation techniques. As a guard if she was not instructed in those techniques, someone was not doing their job. The pictures of her and her fellows show those techniques, nudity, degradation, hooding, being used.”
-
Again, you are stating your belief as fact. She was a guard not an interrogator. The type of interrogation techniques you have been complaining of was primarily performed by specialists and CIA personnel with years of experience.

RetiredAirForce, in the Senate committee report it describes how after the justice department memos OKing torture were sent out, teams were sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, to expound and teach the "enhanced" interrogation techniques. As a guard if she was not instructed in those techniques, someone was not doing their job. The pictures of her and her fellows show those techniques, nudity, degradation, hooding, being used.

“they went around teaching , nudity, hooding, degrading of the prisoners. Exactly what she was charged with as abuse. I`m sure she had a military lawyer, whether that was good or bad only time will tell.”
-
You continue to spout your beliefs as facts. She was charged with conspiracy, maltreating, and an indecent act; please provide, factually, who/where she was taught this. He lawyer(s) were not military they were civilian. It is so easy to sit back and throw out what you think happened, the issue I have is when you lay these ideas out as a fact; “they were taught” and “she had a military lawyer”. Yeah, we all get it you think what the Bush administration did was not right. I have no problem with that.

RetiredAirForce, they went around teaching , nudity, hooding, degrading of the prisoners. Exactly what she was charged with as abuse. I`m sure she had a military lawyer, whether that was good or bad only time will tell.

"a very good case can be made that Lynndie England was following orders."
-
Maybe you should become her lawyer.

You got me there RAF. Did you think of that all by yourself? I would rather be a smart troll then a stupid coward.

RetiredAirForce, I think if you read the, " Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into The Treatment Of Detainees In U.S. Custody," a very good case can be made that Lynndie England was following orders.

andre_linoge just ignore the troll

"Your contention that they were convicted because there were no orders"
-
I did not state this. I said they were convicted of not following orders---two very different things.

Did you think of that all on your own andre? No, you copied me. I like how you and RAF won't acknowledge General Petreus' desire to treat prisoners and your lack of respect for him leads me to believe that both of you are lying about your alleged service. Is stabbing fellow soldiers in the back part of that service.

RetiredAirForce, I don`t see it as far fetched at all. I see the torture after the "enhanced" techniques were approved. I see it all around the world. I see it as system wide. Can it be a coincidence? Where were the commanders when this was going on? They didn`t know what was going on? What exactly were the "approved" tortures? Yes, release all the documents. The Justice department memos only covered Taliban and Al Qeada, what about the torture of military, and civilians? The higher ups did "open" the floodgates, and human nature took over. It went on too long and too often to not be condoned, or ordered. Your contention that they were convicted because there were no orders does not fly when you consider the light punishment even for cases of murder. In my eyes, they were bearing the brunt, small as it was, to save the ones who ordered the torture. I know we will never agree, but these are my beliefs.

“I believe that once you order any kind of torture(waterboarding, walling, outrages on personal dignity, hitting) you open Pandora`s box, and let human nature have free reign. “
-
That is pretty far fetched. Do solders continue to shot people because they once did in battle or because someone else in the squad got to kill someone so they did? Are pilots dropping bombs on any old target because their buddy got to do it? Are there Navy Captains’ sinking ships because others have in the past…your Pandora’s box analogy does not fit the situation at all. You are talking about professionals’ that are doing the best job they can; do some of these people make mistakes and bad ones at that, yes (as a percentage so do the rest of the public). To assert these people will not be able to stop themselves from committing atrocities because someone else did is very small minded.

“they better get Cheney to keep quiet because he is saying that by ORDERING torture they got a lot of information they wouldn`t have gotten. “
-
Who is they? I disagree that he should stop talking. There has been much contention over what was said and done behind closed doors. If you are going to let slip some of the data/material let it all out.

" I also believe they were ordered to torture the way they did. If any of this ever comes to a commission or trial, we shall see. "
-
Yes, I can tell you want to believe it. The problem is the cases we just talked about did go to trial and the conclusion you wanted was not in them. So instead of accepting the truth (from the findings), you continue to look for a conclusion that meets your preconceived idea that the “privates” are found guilty while the higher-ups’ go free; when the truth so far is, the people in these cases acted outside the chain of command and did not follow orders.

RetiredAirForce, one other thing, they better get Cheney to keep quiet because he is saying that by ORDERING torture they got a lot of information they wouldn`t have gotten. Also, the sleeping bag death, I see where it was an approved technique but the commander said it was done wrong. Makes me wonder exactly what was approved.

RetiredAirForce, it would take a remarkable number of coincidences to believe none of these people had received any orders, or were told to use their own judgements, when it came to interrogating prisoners. There are too many similarities in methods between Iraq/Afghanistan/Guantanamo to believe any different. I believe that once you order any kind of torture(waterboarding, walling, outrages on personal dignity, hitting) you open Pandora`s box, and let human nature have free reign. I also believe they were ordered to torture the way they did. If any of this ever comes to a commission or trial, we shall see. I just cannot believe in all the coincidences without a chain of command. Sounds like all the services, CIA, paid contractors went overboard because of the memos. I sincerely hope those lawyers are disbarred, at the least.

Pharm the other stories in your link are of the same type; people that did not follow orders. Making a person jump from a bridge into the water; what memo was that in? Kicking a person to death; another memo that does not exist? It goes back to what I have stated, the people that have been convicted of atrocities (to this point) did not follow any orders or memos from the state dept/ white house/ or justice dept. Does that mean the actions the people you brought up are good, NO!!! I am simply stating your continued assertion that these actions were the “privates” being convicted for actions they were instructed to perform is not true.

Pharm, the very first account brought up in your link on military.com talks of a CWO Lewis Welshofer. If you read the details on this case CWO Lewis Welshofer knew before the event happened that he did not have the authority to perform the actions he committed and also knew of a memo (direct order) from his superior that required authorization to perform any of the techniques he used. Bottom line: he was not following orders. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10913775/

“abuse(torture) not enough? Lynndie England.”
-
Your contention is “they were told to do enhanced interrogation methods”. In what memo was the action(s) that Lynndie England described? I could wait for you to find it; but you and I both know there is none. Her statement during public interviews that she was instructed by those in higher ranks to perform these actions…did not prove the case during her legal trial. If there had been a legal order for her or the others in this case to perform these actions they would not have been convicted.

RetiredAirforce, try this one...www.military.com/forums/0,15240,119096,00.html

Let's face it, it is sad that RAF and andre undermine operations and our soldiers in Iraq by ignoring what General Petreus says about torture and the unjust treatment of prisoners. He clearly thinks his narrow minded views are more important than the mission. Evidently, he cannot handle the truth.

RetiredAirForce, go to , human rights first and punch up detainee deaths, it will take you to a lot of their sites that describe torture deaths, and prosecutions.

RetiredAirforce, abuse(torture) not enough? Lynndie England.

I guess if there isn't a conviction, it didn't happen! Good news for Kyle Hicke.

pharm please provide a link to anyone convicted of a torture charge. I would like to read the details.

Most of the photos from the abuse at Abu Ghraib were of techniques specifically mentioned in the Justice department memos.All of those convicted said they were just following orders. Not a valid defense, but their statements are on the record.

RetiredAirForce, they were told to use "enhanced interrogation methods"(torture) by their superiors, going all the way to Mr. Bush. He considered himself above the law(with his own signing statement). The guy waterboarded 83 times in a month, after giving up all he knew, was wounded three times when he was captured. When Mr. Bush was told they had him, and were questioning him, he was also told he was on pain medication. His retort, "Who authorized that?" Follow the chain of command. It would have been impossible for the Generals, Colonels,not to know the methods being used, unless they were complete idiots. Now in all reality, I don`t expect Mr. Bush, or Cheney, Gonzales, Bybee, Yoo, or any other higher up to ever see a jail cell because the political will is not there to do it. I do expect the justice department lawyers to be disbarred, at least severely reprimanded. The CIA operatives, SEALS, contract workers will probably get away with murder. Some more lower enlisted personnel will be convicted, but the big shots will skate. The way of the world.

"The ones that ordered torture have felt no punishment, just the lower ranks."
-
You are still stretching the truth. Nobody that/is convicted of any sort of torture was ordered to do it. If they had orders they would not have been (if at all) punished.

Okay, andre.
Since you've made it quite clear that those of us who haven't served in the military have no voice when it comes to torture, what about those who have served?
+
Is John McCain (who is against torture) uncapable of "handling the boy scouts,?" Does he have a "yellow stripe down his back?"
+
Can you still hear me laughing at this end? The only argument you have for torture is using our lack of military experience against us. This is deeply troubling. Believe me, I am nothing but humbled and honored by our troops. These feelings do not take away from the fact that right now, our troops are all part of the military because they chose to be. They chose to sign up for this job, and should be held liable for the laws regulating it...like anyone in any other job.

> I find it really funny when the people that tell us how our military and the CIA should behave when protecting the United States, have never served themselves.

I have to respond to this type of thinking.

No, I haven't served but I believe my way of serving this country is holding the people in charge accountable.

If I or someone I care about is killed as a result of a terrorist attack because torture was not used...that is my sacrifice. I am willing to die for this country if my death means the standards of how we treat are enemies are maintained. If the LAW is followed and there is an attack...that should be our (civilans) sacrifice.

The torture was done months after the LA attack was broken up. They are lying about the information gained as a result of torture.

Torture should not be used, the previous administration should be held accountable for breaking the law.

The US should set the standard for how prisoners are treated.

Retiredairforce, you are right. by saying privates, I meant lower echelon soldiers(privates sergeants, Warrent officers, Lt`s, Cpts.) Are any Generals in the brig, any Majors, any attorney generals? I said it wrong, but that is what I meant. The ones that ordered torture have felt no punishment, just the lower ranks.

"The ONLY "right" that a captured spy loses is that of COMMUNICATION."
-
Partially true. "spy may..be deprived temporarily of certain rights, particularly the right of communication" http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-6001...

"NOT ONE PERSON ON HERE HAS IN ANY WAY DENIGRATED ANY SERVICE NOR THE ACTIONS OF ANY MEMBER OF ANY BRANCH OR ANY SERVICE"
-
Please read many of darwin1's past comments

"Up to now only the privates have been punished"
-
Try to be factual...this is completly dishonest and you know it.

I have to agree with SA and RAF.....Can't type now got to get ready for work......everyone STAY SAFE!!!!!!

Shorter: this is not about saving terrorists' lives, they have already forsaken theirs; this is about saving American lives.

> If you are the joe flint from GM, then I know why you are full of hot air.

Nope, sorry.

> I've never read so much crap in my life.

I can only assume you are referring to this: "All of our services, uniformed and clandestine, are volunteer. They are the best trained and best equipped in the world."

Because the other side of that coin is disturbing: we should emulate (hold up, model ourselves after, copy) the terrorists? If they do it, why shouldn't we?

> I find it really funny when the people that tell us how our military and the CIA should behave when protecting the United States, have never served themselves.

First, you do understand that we live in a CIVILIAN society not a military junta? The law of the land is that CIVILIANS tell the military and other services what to do. Our elected officials and our services serve at We The People's pleasure and for our benefit. This very point is so lost on most people that it disgusts me and it should disgust everyone.

Secondly, NOT ONE PERSON ON HERE HAS IN ANY WAY DENIGRATED ANY SERVICE NOR THE ACTIONS OF ANY MEMBER OF ANY BRANCH OR ANY SERVICE. Get over yourself.

This discussion and this article are talking about holding elected and unelected officials accountable for legalizing, post hoc, interrogation schemes that run counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of various domestic laws and international treaties.

Third, and this is a deadly serious question: if nothing done was wrong, will it be okay in the future for other regimes who manage to capture American soliders, mercenaries, or spies to perform the same acts? If so, you are condoning and defending the potential future legalized torture (sorry, enhanced interrogation) under the Geneva Conventions of American service people. Frankly, I do not want to ever see that happen. Other countries will be able to say that they too are following the Geneva Conventions if they torture Americans. That thought absolutely sickens me.

Good night and good luck, indeed, if you cannot or will not see the forest for the trees.

I know General Petreus running his mouth all the time about how prisoners should be treated justly and all. Hey andre are you going to cry now too? What do you know about honor? You don't even have respect for someone who is actually in uniform.

andre, you`re getting a little emotional and saying things you don`t know to be true, and are making a fool of yourself.

Just because you served, didn`t serve doesn`t make you right or wrong. The laws are there for a reason and if you don`t follow them you are a lawbreaker and deserve to be punished. Even if you are the President, Attorney General, or a private. Up to now only the privates have been punished. I have a medical condition and was turned down twice in the 60`s, I suppose that disqualifies me from saying what I believe is right or wrong. Torture is against our law, world law, civilized societies law. Anyone who breaks the law should be punished, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Preacher, atheist, veteran, or non-combatant. Just because a terrorist does not follow the law doesn`t give us the right to emulate him. The guy who I said died in my other post was a General in the Iraqi army, not a terrorist, or spy, did he deserve what happened to him?

General Petreus says torture is wrong too. An active General operating in theater says its wrong and self-defeating but somehow the blow hards on hear won't even listen to a commanding officer. No wonder you're no longer in the military you clearly were dishonorably discharged because you are unable to follow orders.

Do you find it equally funny that the Commander in Chief...the head of the military, if you will, has never served? Somehow, I find your argument to be a little ridiculous. ?Can you hear the laughter at my end?

joeflint: Give it up dude and get a life. I've never read so much crap in my life. You talk a lot and say nothing.

> Does anyone really think that al qaeda cares about or adheres to the Geneva convention?

Nice strawman... it DOES NOT MATTER if terrorists do not adhere to the laws of war... WE SIGNED A TREATY, WE ARE OBLIGATED.

To readdress the spy thing, for the third time:

A SPY CANNOT BE TORTURED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

The ONLY "right" that a captured spy loses is that of COMMUNICATION. The VERY NEXT SENTENCE states that "In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity."

Further!

Spies while not gaining the legal STATUS of a protected person nevertheless are to be "granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person ... at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

In real plain English:

A captured spy cannot write a letter home. A POW can. Think about why. This is why spies lose the right of COMMUNICATION. They still have all other protections, primarily to be treated humanely.

All of our services, uniformed and clandestine, are volunteer. They are the best trained and best equipped in the world. We SHOULD hold ourselves to a higher standard and we are by having these discussions.

No, they weren't. They also aren't acting on our behalf, they didn't sign up to be in our military, to get paid to defend our country. Let's face it, as heroic as I believe our soldiers to be, they are paid to do their job...

That is a joke......That soldier should have NEVER been fined the $6K. The enlisted don't make nearly enough for the job they do--to subject them to fines like that is completely unacceptable. When the Iraqis were cutting the heads off of our countrymen and dragging their bodies though the streets, were they cited with these outrageous fines? I think not!!!!!

Right on Pharm. The Islamic extremists you fear do destroy a part of this nation when they stir up the christian extremists to the point where the core principles of this country are corrupted - like when god crazy bush pushes for torture.

A prisoner was murdered during interrogation. beaten with sledgehammer handles. Put into a sleeping bag, tied with electrical cord, the questioner sat on his chest and covered his mouth and nose. He died, the government autopsy said he died from "asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression." He was an Iraqi general that surrendered to us. His torturer was tried and convicted. His sentence, a written reprimand, $6000 fine, and confinement to house, base, and church for 60 days. What a joke! But, according to Mr. Bush ,"we don`t torture." This is only one of 34 homicides of detainees. Whoever is responsible should be held accountable.

WHat exactly does that prove? Murders don't care about the law either otherwise they wouldn't murder. Of course, they don't care about the law that's what makes them wrong. If evil doesn't care about good we should get rid of good and all be evil?

If they are Dems and did wrong then let them fall.

Before our Revolution John Adams defended nine British Soldiers who had fired into a hostile mob. Now the Bush administration would have just said it was justified and told everyone to shut up. Instead they were put on PUBLIC trial and PUBLICLY acquitted because the truth came out about what really happened. This is what due process is for. If they aren't criminals then let them defend themselves with all the courage of their convictions instead of hiding like cowards behind the bureaucracy of military secrets.

Remember when we used to be the good guys? In the movies when I grew up it was always some backwards country that did the torturing, but when it came to the Americans we always stood up for what was right and always treated our prisoners with respect, the Geneva convention was always followed. Its sad that this religious crusade has robbed us of that.

andre, he not only gives an opinion he cites the laws. Waterboarding has been illegal in this country for over 100 years, people have been convicted for violating that law. You are right about lawyers giving their versions of laws, that`s what the Bush justice department did without any kind of outside review, and you see what happened. I realize two lawyers can read a sentence two ways, but when a law has been applied you just can`t dismiss it as they did.

RetiredAirForce, doesn`t make any difference unless his facts can be disputed.

Does it make a difference if this Bozo is a monetary supporter of the current President, or would this just be a coincidence?

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neigh...

Doesn`t make any difference to me if he is Bozo the Clown and doing a donkey act in Tiajuana if he has his facts correct.

andre, can you dispute his facts about what the laws and acts and Geneva Convention says?

andre, do you actually know anything about him, or do you just throw stuff out there? Seems to me he had his facts down pretty well.

lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sm8Os3mX...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMruiBVvt...

Hannity offers to be waterboarded for charity...claims it is not torture.

Olbermann offers $1000 / sec. if Hannity doesn't back down.

Anything to absolve Saint Reagan.

The "rags" hit you with a truck bomb just like they hit with IED's now. Did you learn to blame others for what your responsible for in the military too? And what does that have to do with torturing someone. You take an oath to uphold the Constitution? Good job.

Why was my post removed, I didn't refer to anyone as a "rag"?

shdow5, just to enlighten me, how did a Democrat Congress(Republican President and Senate) order anybody to empty their weapons?

twice? weird

Wow we can now take this back to 1983 Beirut when the Dem Congress ordered us to empty our weapons and then advertised it so that the rags knew how to hit us and it cost us the lives of 299 good men. Ya Justice! Its a fact I was there.
Bring it on lets see where it stops and if they got the gonads to answer for their actions.

Wow we can now take this back to 1982-83 Beirut when the Dem Congress ordered us to empty our weapons and then advertised it so that the rags knew how to hit us and it cost us the lives of 299 good men. Ya Justice! Its a fact I was there.
Bring it on lets see where it stops and if they got the gonads to answer for their actions.

"Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi civilian's life, an Iranian life, Chinese life, etc? Don't be afraid to answer."
-
In what context? Are they shooting at us or our troops, or is this a generalized question of a group of people in one place from different parts of the world?

Well, I personally find it disturbing that many on the right,who proclaim to protect life and and take an anti-abortion stance, find it acceptable to torture and in the process of doing so degrade the standard value of human life.

(if you feel more comfortable using the terms enhanced interrogatoin instead of torture that is fine as long as it makes you feel better and sleep at night)

My question: Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi civilian's life, an Iranian life, Chinese life, etc? Don't be afraid to answer.

The autopsies show that we "killed" detainees, our government said so. Some were beaten to death, some strangled. It goes to the point that we tortured. Claims have already been paid to survivors of those killed, and sexually abused, while in our custody. The guy who was waterboarded 83 times was shot three times when he was captured,and he has a mental condition, yet he was immediately subjected to abuse. The waterboarding got nothing from him we didn`t know. The FBI, Army, Air Force, Marines all said we shouldn`t torture, but we did.

It could be argued that all those that have died in these conflicts, after these people attacked our country, were/are innocent. It is obvious we have different points of view on this issue; that is fine. I find it hard to swallow we need to somehow be morally right after our innocents were attacked. We were morally right before our country was attacked, how well did work for the people that died?
-
To the continued harking of analysis of autopsies by the ACLU; (not sure what this has to do with American civil liberties). There are many missing items from the analysis’; were they injured before or during capture, any pre-existing conditions that attributed to the determined causes of death, did age or life style of the deceased have contributing factors ( I could list many but this is enough)? There is a very unique juxtaposition in the modest outrage of these deaths and the silence from the same critiques over deaths of similar combatants before attempted capture. A slow death from a bleeding head, chest, or stomach wound on the field of battle, I guess, is the furthest thing from torture; presumably because the ACLU and many pundants complaining of torture have not uttered a peep on this subject.

You might not have an issue with it but obviously many others do. Just because somebody else violates the laws of society doesn`t give us the right to do it, that`s why there are laws and courts. If those in authority have the guts and political will to go forward with a probe into the torture, we will see how it plays out. Some of those that died in our custody were innocents, just like those in the planes and towers. Did they deserve to die? It will be interesting to see if any of the prisoners we still have can even be tried since it is known some were tortured, I doubt it.

"executed over 2,700 innocent Americans when they attacked us on 9/11"
-
After taking them hostage

Going back to the 1800's to find examples to justify your position? Too funny:) I hate to tell you, but the world has changed quite a bit since then. The death of 30 suspected terrorists is a small price to pay--and one that I have absolutely no issue with. After all, they executed over 2,700 innocent Americans when they attacked us on 9/11......

Over 100 prisoners died in our hands, over 30 labeled homicides. US Major Edwin Glenn waterboarded a prisoner during the Spanish American War, he was sentenced to ten years hard labor. After helping the British hang Japanese soldiers convicted of waterboarding, the US officially outlawed the practice after WW11. This country considers it torture.

usaret,
I totaly agree with you. I would also say to those who are against these practices, say a loved one was about to die at the hands of one of the terrorist, you would not alow water boarding? also to nero we have no intensions of killing them I am shure medics were on hand.

Waterboarding vs. getting your head chopped off with a hatchet. It's a tough call, but I think they've got us beat as far as the more destructive behavior goes........Maybe if we 86 the waterboarding and give them hugs and free candy bars instead, they'll be nicer to us and only chop off the legs or arms of their prisoners.....:)

Spies can be executed, not tortured, UN Torture Conventions. I don`t think the Geneva Convention says they can be tortured. You are in the minority as far as not thinking waterboarding is torture, we executed Japanese after WW2 because they did it. How about the prisoners that were beaten to death and strangled according to government autopsies. Is that not torture? The justice department issued a baseless, illegal decision according to the experts on international law, not me, the experts. That is why there is an uproar. We`ll see how it plays out.

“Are you saying there was no torture, or that the torture broke no law?”
-
I have always believed that the treatment endured during this period was far from nice but was not torture. As to the direct question on law; which law. There are treaties, conventions, protocols, US title codes, and military law; all were looked at by the justice department before the memos were written and the position from them was water boarding was not torture.
***
“Even spies are not supposed to be tortured.”
-
Please read the Geneva Convention protocols; spies are not protected.
***
“…should go to jail with Lynndie England.”
-
Granted she was convicted and sent to jail. Her conviction was was about conspiracy and indecency and not weatherboarding. The red herring of bringing her into this side steps the issue of intelligence gathering. She was not trained nor instructed to perform the actions described in the memos (or the pictures) her task was housing/guarding detainees. As with all military positions; if performed carelessly you are subject to the UCMJ.

Retiredairforce, I`m confused. Are you saying there was no torture, or that the torture broke no law? The Army, Air Force, Marines, said there was torture, as does the UN. We executed Japanese after WW2 for waterboarding, and in my mind we did more than waterboarding, over 100 detainees died. Even spies are not supposed to be tortured. I say again, if it is concluded that no laws were broken, fine and dandy, but if they were there should be prosecution and the condoners, those that ordered it, should go to jail with Lynndie England.

Retiredairforce, any law, military code, UN protocals, that apply. If the law is broken, prosecute. Like I said, I`m not a lawyer, I`m sure if any law is/was broken it will surface. If not, the furor will go away, just as it did when the Republicans wanted a probe into Clintons` pardons.

Pharm, what law are you referring to.

If there is a violation, not presumed, whoever did it deserves to be brought to justice. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, any one who breaks the law should be pursued.

OK Nixon

If there is no legal merit to go after the ones who ordered the torture, the case will fall apart for lack of merit. If some court lets a case go forward, we`ll see. I`m not a lawyer, it`s only my opinion that torture is illegal, immoral, and doesn`t work.

Joe thanks for the tip on the treaty; it was not much better of a read. I also took the occasion to look into the “committee” and their views; in respect to the treaty. It is as with everything else perception. The US government position during the conflict time following 911 was/is,
`
the… “Convention is not applicable in times and in the context of armed conflict, on the basis of the argument that the “law of armed conflict” is the exclusive lex specialis applicable, and that the Convention’s application “would result in an overlap of the different treaties”
`
The committee is at odds with this view, so, who is right? It makes perfect sense, those persons elected to the committee charged with oversight would think [the treaty] should/could trump all else, this does not mean they are correct; it is just an opinion of the committee.
`
To your quote from Article 5, yes that is true and was part of the original convention. In 1977 three Protocols were added. Protocol I, article 46 states “…shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.” and “A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.” Could the treaty you provide "trump" this...who knows. I only know enough about legal stuff to form an opinion...as do most others.

... and yes, laws and treaties make for damned dry reading ... one more reason to avoid becoming a politician or lawyer and one more excuse for pols to not read the bills that arrive on their desks.

Good on ya for doing some source material research!

The difference -- the legal one -- between a spy or mercenary and a terrorist is that the latter is not under the employ or command of a particular state.

There is yet another international treaty to which we are a party that will not allow the torture of mercenaries or spies or anyone else: the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It includes this definition of torture:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Additionally, that treaty contains a ban on refoulement, the sending of a prisoner to a country "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture". It is a fact that we have done so during the GWoT.

As already stated, GCIV Article 5 states in part:

"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

A very uninteresting dry read the conventions are; I muddled through them completely for the first time today. Of interest to me, the word unlawful appears only three times and never in context of the word combatant. Another interesting tidbit, a spy or mercenary (essentially the same definition as a terrorist in my eyes) do not have the same protections that combatants or uniformed fighters do…they are not protected by the conventions. So this all boils down to interpretation and what you want to believe; the conventions never define torture (specifically) yet say don’t do it to POW’s or combatants’; but torture all the spies and mercenaries’ you want, they have no protection.

One more link... an article written by Malcolm W. Nance. He has an impressive resume:

Malcolm W. Nance is a counter-terrorism and terrorism intelligence consultant for the U.S. government’s Special Operations, Homeland Security and Intelligence agencies. A 20-year veteran of the US intelligence community's Combating Terrorism program and a six year veteran of the Global War on Terrorism he has extensive field and combat experience as an field intelligence collections operator, an Arabic speaking interrogator and a master Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) instructor. From Beirut in 1983 he has deployed on numerous anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism intelligence operations in Balkans, Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and other small wars in direct support to the principle agencies of the Special Operations and Intelligence Community. In 1997 at the US Navy SERE School’s Advanced Terrorism, Abduction and Hostage Survival program (ATAHS) in Coronado, California, he created and led the terrorism training team tasked to simulate the Al Qaeda organization and its tactics, techniques and procedures. In January 2001, he formed Special Readiness Services International to support the SOF in analysis of Al Qaeda and global Jihadi strategy and tactics. On the morning of 9/11 he eye witnessed the attack on the Pentagon and performed rescue/recovery at the crash site. For more than six years he has conducted operations in support of international, federal and state homeland security agencies as well as in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whether or not you want to agree or disagree with his premise, PLEASE read his conclusion. I hope to God that he is wrong and that the Law of Unintended Consequences does not haunt us in the future.

Waterboarding is Torture... Period.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10...

From my original comment in this thread way back on the 14th...

"Compare the original case to the conviction rate for some 3,000 people arrested as "enemy combatants". I believe that it currently stands at two. That is simply pathetic. There are currently ~250 prisoners remaining at Gitmo, only 17 are charged with war crimes. Roughly 65 have been released without any charge. For those who remain, if there is sufficient evidence, why is there a delay to try the cases?"

Let's cut the crap, close Gitmo, try and convict those against whom there is sufficient evidence (military tribunals are legal, see my comments about ex parte Quirin), and execute them.

This satisfies everyone: our domestic Constitutionally-derived laws are followed and those guilty of war crimes or terrorism can be dealt with swiftly (usually there is no or a very restricted appeals process for military tribunals).

> Sure Joe, as long as you are offering. The Geneva Convention also mentions that a person can become a privileged combatant...

No, they cannot be afforded EVER be afforded the STATUS of privileged combatant as I said in my introduction ("It is a fact that people fought against the United States as "unlawful combatants").

However... as I also wrote:

The GC states that "[unlawful combatants] shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

What this means in terms of terrorism is up for debate. In other words, when a state-on-state armed conflict ends, there is a truce or armistice -- a definite end to hostilities. In this case, anyone held by either side is returned to their state of origin.

Now, when will terrorism or the "War on Terror" ever end? With whom can we sign a treaty? This remains one of the central LEGAL issues. A conflict without end provides many opportunities to abandon both domestic law (e.g. WARRANTLESS domestic wiretapping, a violation of the 4th Amendment) and international law (e.g. certain aspects of the Geneva Convention). An endless conflict leaves "unlawful combatants" in a legal limbo. If they are (legally) imprisoned and no longer have any timely information to provide, do they individually remain a threat to our national security? This is why I cannot understand why we have not had proper trials -- those found guilty can be executed, LEGALLY.

In short and as others have pointed out: if we abandon our principles, then for what exactly are we fighting?

> How can this be true. Just recently the justice department has stated they are not sure if they can prosecute the Somali pirate; because of jurisdiction issues...this is the same.

No RAF, it is not the same.

The pirates were detained on the high seas where different laws (may) apply, hence the question. Either the pirates will be tried in the United States under U.S. maritime law or they will be brought before an international court that has jurisdiction.

usaret - You raised a very important point.

> Do any of you dissenters ever read any of the comments written by people in our own community on what they would do or want to happen to people who cause death due to drunken driving, people who kill their ex-girl friends, abuse a child?

Yes and it disgusts me. It is un-American and un-Christian. You will note that I have made several comments in those threads about why the presumption of innocence exists and why it is important.

The Supreme Court disagrees no. So, you know more the Gen Petreus.

*Here it is plain and simple, George W. Bush and members of his administration violated the U. S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention*

Those picked up on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan are neither US citizens nor uniformed military, so neither the Constitution nor the Geneva Convention applies.

*That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind.*

Actually, no, it just leaves everyone with one eye.

The justice Department has been discredited by the Code itself, the Geneva Conventions, Amnesty International, world opinion, etc. What they condoned was against the law, why do you think there is such an uproar? More than likely nothing will happen to the higher ups, but how can you justify murder, which, by the governments own statements and autopsy reports, happened?

I completely understand the ticking bomb scenario and this is why we have due process in this country. I can't think of a jury who would convict and officer or any government employee for beating the crap out of some guy to save the life of thousands of babies, women, children, puppies or kittens. However, this is why we have due process: There are exceptions to every rule. When government agents flout due process and instead erect an opaque wall that says "trust us" it becomes apparent that they should not be trusted and they undermine our nation our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan with behavior that is according to Gen. Petreus "self-defeating".

"The Code covers these offenses"
-
That is the whole point. The Justice Department determined the actions (weatherboarding) at the time were legal and within current law. I am not a lawyer and I don't pretend to play one here. So who is right? The Justice Department's (opinion) or the opinion of keyboard lawyers here?

aclu just posts the information obtained from the government, they don`t make it up. They do what you are supposed to do in a free country, hold the government to lawful standards. Whether you like them or not, they are doing a service to the country. What do they do to you if you refuse an order in the service? What did they do to the guards at Abu Grhaib(sic), aren`t they confined someplace for torturing prisoners?The Code covers these offenses, and condoning, ordering, torture is prohibited. How about murder, is that covered, we did that too. What happened at Nuremburg(sic)? The ones who ordered the crimes were tried and executed even though they didn`t commit the crimes. If you are in charge, you take the heat.

"If the Military Code and the Geneva Conventions are not enough law for you, nothing will ever be."
-
This is not about what would be enough for me; I am not even pretending to put forth in anyway that I agree with the stance this was illegal--clearly I believe it was just and right. I am only asking for what laws the posters here are claiming were broken to justify the term illegal and (some) demand people go to jail.

"We have already paid some families for "killing' their sons during torture, and for the sexual abuse of a female prisoner. aclu.org. Not to mention , updated, over 100 detainee deaths, 34 by homicide."
-
I would think the ACLU needs to change their name from American Civil Liberties Union - to ICLU (International Civil Liberties Union). But then if they do that, and file suits in other countries they might have to pay court costs; most countries are "loser-pays", not the same as the tort law in our country.

Usaret:
I understand your points, I especially like the point you raised about comments made towards local criminals opposed to the comments made by the same people regarding torture.
+
I think a big part of the problem with torture is that when it's carried out, there is a lot of assuming. You assume a person to have information, if you knew what the information was, you obviously wouldn't have to torture. The fact that torture is usually carried out on "suspects" not on people who have been found guilty is troubling, as it is in direct conflict with the notion "innocent until proven guilty..."
+
You post that people who condemn torture sit in the safety of our homes while doing so...I don't understand the evidence you have indicating that the reason we enjoy our safety is because of torture? Have you read the memos? One of the interrogators waterboarded a detainee 183 times. Is that rational? When you go to turn on your light switch, and it doesn't work, do you do it 183 times, hoping for a different result? I just don't understand the thought process here.
+
I'll admit that I don't understand the thought process. No problem there. I implore the rest of the posters to stop taking each others comments so personally. This is a serious issue, one in which we won't solve on this blog. The fact that I am against torture doesn't mean I'm a socialist, etc. The fact that you can argue for it doesn't make you a nazi, either.

A pirate is not a "combatant", he is just a criminal. As such he is not entitled or subject to the rules of war. If the Military Code and the Geneva Conventions are not enough law for you, nothing will ever be.

"Any other questions?"
-
Sure Joe, as long as you are offering. The Geneva Convention also mentions that a person can become a privileged combatant if they “respect the laws and customs of war”. Just wondering if the people associated with Al-Qaida, you know the ones that behead people, purposely targeted civilians (airplanes), and have women and children strapped with bombs qualify for this? Or is there some other clause in the Convention I am missing?

"In line with the right-wings hypocrisy, RAF has realized his arguments have no moral or strategic basis so he has decided to lawyer up to get criminals off on a supposed technicality."
-
Nice try at swerving from the question. You have been one of the most stanch critics on this site about how what was done is illegal and many of those people involved should be placed in jail. I am just letting you provide what law was broken (as you say) for everyone to read; it is obvious you must have read it to come to the conclusions you state here.

"In short: unlawful combatants may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime (we have not declared war)."
-
How can this be true. Just recently the justice department has stated they are not sure if they can prosecute the Somali pirate; because of jurisdiction issues...this is the same.

Do any of you dissenters ever read any of the comments written by people in our own community on what they would do or want to happen to people who cause death due to drunken driving, people who kill their ex-girl friends, abuse a child?
Many of the ideas submitted are far worse then water-boarding and yet, no one ever says hey, we shouldn't do that because it is not moral or the American way to do things. But, you justify it in your mind that this a fitting punishment or torture for what that individual did. Does this make you any better or worse?
If nothing is done, you scream "WHY WASN'T SOMETHING DONE BEFORE IT HAPPENED?" When you tie the hands of those who are there to protect you, you leave yourself open to the enemy who really doesn't give a damn about your morals of what is right and wrong. No we don't have to sink to their slimmy level but we have to be ready to look the other way on occasion and do that which insures that our country is safe and secure. You may not like it, tough! Too many of you out there are content to sit in your homes, safe and secure and yet don't realize what it takes to guarentee that precious freedom. It seems to make you feel high and mighty that you haven't dirtied your hands while you chastize those that do. Rather or not you like it, this world is not the pretty little world you have pictured in your mind. There are still too many selfish, greedy people who want to control or kill you for any reason or destroy are country and the freedom we enjoy. Can you even imagine what it would be like if you couldn't protest like you do here? We need to protect against them but for some reason you are more interested in helping them by trying to prevent the very people who are willing to take the action to prevent it. This is America and we defend our own and we will defend those who cannot defend themselves. If everybody followed the rules it might be different but they don't. Why should we have to tie our hands behind our back and turn the other cheek all the time? Thankfully, this will never happen, but don't come running to my door asking for help when the enemy takes over. You opened the door for them, now you will have to live with it. You will learn what torture really is then. I will, if able, join the forces to defeat this enemy, what will you do? Read all the books, listen to all the various experts, but when it comes to protecting our great nation, do what has to be done, otherwise there will be nothing left to protect or defend. Survival takes priority.

We have already paid some families for "killing' their sons during torture, and for the sexual abuse of a female prisoner. aclu.org. Not to mention , updated, over 100 detainee deaths, 34 by homicide.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

"Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned [Abu Zubaydah] from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

"We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks..."

[...]

"One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinio......

Thanks for the softball RAF...

It is a fact that people fought against the United States as "unlawful combatants"; however, we as a state are bound to the Geneva Conventions that we have ratified. In short: unlawful combatants may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime (we have not declared war).

Torture, it has become abundantly clear, was used to extract information that was already known to be not true, e.g. a link between al-Qaida (adherents of a radical branch of Islam) and Iraq under Saddam Hussein (secular and yes quite capable of evil). The "torture memos" written by Bybee, Gonzales, et al were used to twist and pervert domestic law in order to post hoc legalize "enhanced interrogation methods."

Now to directly answer your question:

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." -- Geneva Convention IV, Article 5.

Additionally, we have signed (but not ratified) Protocol 1 which includes Article 75:

2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:

(a) Violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:

(i) Murder;

(ii) Torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;

( iii ) Corporal punishment ; and

(iv) Mutilation;

(b) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;

(c) The taking of hostages;

(d) Collective punishments; and

(e) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

Although this the U.S. has not ratified this protocol, it forms the basis for much of the US Army Field Manual, The Law of Land Warfare.

Any other questions?

In line with the right-wings hypocrisy, RAF has realized his arguments have no moral or strategic basis so he has decided to lawyer up to get criminals off on a supposed technicality.

"We also instruct our armed forces on the Geneva Convention rules"
-
What part of the Geneva convention protects un-uniformed people acting alone; not part of a government?

How does this answer the question? How does this have any effect on the CIA?

We also instruct our armed forces on the Geneva Convention rules, don`t we?

This is directly from Gen Petreus's COIN manual. So, some people think torture is ok except for the military commander in charge. So, by supporting torture you are undermining our military efforts.
1-132. Illegitimate actions are those involving the use of power without authority—whether committed
by government officials, security forces, or counterinsurgents. Such actions include unjustified or excessive
use of force, unlawful detention, torture, and punishment without trial. Efforts to build a legitimate
government though illegitimate actions are self-defeating, even against insurgents who conceal themselves
amid noncombatants and flout the law. Moreover, participation in COIN operations by U.S. forces
must follow United States law, including domestic laws, treaties to which the United States is party, and
certain HN laws. (See appendix D.) Any human rights abuses or legal violations committed by U.S. forces
quickly become known throughout the local populace and eventually around the world. Illegitimate actions
undermine both long- and short-term COIN efforts.

To the posters that say torture is illegal, please post the US code or law refereed to that provides jurisdiction over said offense when not performed on/in the US soil?

If we all say nothing will change, so why try things will never change for the better. I refuse to believe torture is just something we need to accept.

Pharm--I never said it was legal or moral. I said it was a fact of war that we need to accept because it isn't going to go away just because we don't approve.

Understanding why something happened still doesn`t make it legal or moral. A man stealing to feed his family is guilty of theft. A man torturing prisoners is guilty of torture. Period!

"You don't condone torture you just makes excuses for it"...........You don't have to condone something to understand why it happens. That's whats called having an open mind. You might try opening up yours sometime.

Since when is our military in Iraq defending us? I am not saying anything bad about the military, I am saying our leaders made them think they were defending us and have put them in a useless war. How dare they lie to the men and women who have signed up to fight for us! A simple definition from the dictionary about the meaning of the word defend would answer that!
And yes it's understandable that people do harsh things when faced with danger, but this was not the case! Maybe if we weren't so scared of everything and always ready to fight all of the time we could open our minds and see what was really going on around us!

You don't condone torture you just makes excuses for it and want us to except it. Does God split hairs too or is that just you?

RAF, since your too incompetent to talk about anything, I see you have resorted to being the dictator of who is on topic or not.

Do you people honestly think that this is the first time the U.S. has engaged in torture tactics? We send young men over to foreign countries with instructions to kill the enemy, subject them to any number of horrors we can only imagine including watching their buddies get blown to bits and then are outraged when the military uses tactics we don't approve of. Granted this current war is being fought against terrorists but the Germans we fought and the Japanese we fought were no different than we were. They were sending their young men off to war same as us. They tortured us and the news media made sure us civilians back home heard about it. But what we didn't hear about was the torture our military performed on the enemy. That would have been negative to the morale of us civilians. But we won those wars thanks to our military force and they were treated with the dignity and respect they deserved when they came home. Whether torture is used to extract information or revenge it is a fact of any war and we need to learn to accept it. I don't condone torture but I'm realistic enough to know that when people are faced with the threat of death they will resort to behavior they never would have thought themselves capable of. It's just too easy for us to sit back and pass judgment on the very people that are over there protecting our lives and country.

Out of all that dribble only one of five points were on topic. At least you got one this time.

They guy in charge of torture claims it was effective. Well, imagine that. RAF you were in the military but are as naive as a child. How is waterboarding the same guy 185 times in a month effective? GO TO JAIL!!!

Of course they need to be held accountable. Bush and anyone who was in on his awful ways needs to be in jail. I would go to jail if I did these awful hateful UNGodly things!!! It should be no different for politians or our military! When you take an oath to be a teacher, judge, police officer, congressman, etc., you are not only trusted with our lives, but more importantly our children's lives. Shouldn't there be as much, if not more accountability if this trust is broken?

I'm sure I will be slammed for this, but why is it we feel we have the right to be the baddest country out there? Why do we have such harsh "no bullying" rules at our schools if this is the reality our children are going to grow up into? Call me simple minded or unrealistic, but why do we teach our children to be kind and respectable if we ourselves cannot. Why do we have the right to play God?

It's too bad the current and past administration people don't listen to the "experts" we have posting here........
"President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists. "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

Please explain what my feeble fascists mind cannot comprehend. This should be good . . .

Torture is waiting 4 years until I can vote out Obama and the current administration.

The real definition of torture is reading some of these remarks. I think I would rather experience waterboarding...seems less painful.

More dribble...

RAF nitpicks around the topic.

NotUnder can't read or comprehend.

One person water boarded 185 times is torture. It is a crime. It is illegal. It is wrong. Is it too hard to understand?

So far I have not seen anyone say what their definition of "torture" was or is. Everyone is assuming our county's version of torture is something like cutting off fingers or popping out eyeballs. They couldn't be more wrong. Any suggestion to the contrary is assuming the major news media (NBC-CBS-ABC-CNN-NPR, etc)has a monopoly on the truth. Although listening to AC/DC over loudspeakers is torture to me.

You really like the word fascist, don't you? I didn't like the expansion of government over the past 8 years, but it seems like that expansion is happening much faster with the current administration.

Where did I say Lincoln condoned torture? Point it out to me. I was responding to the quote given by Professor. Nice try on trying to get me with something I didn't say.

"military spends money on fraudulent wars"
-
The US congress authorized the US military to spend money to wage war...yep, but it was the military's fault.

Right wing fascists make excuses for right wing criminals, imagine that. Maybe you should have been paying attention to the expansion of our fascist right wing government over the past 8 years. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus he didn't condone torture Dr Mengele.

Uhh, Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus during the Civil War.

To darwin: You've run out of excuses so you resort to ad hominem attacks. Classy. If you're so against fascism, maybe you should pay attention to the expansion of government over the past couple years (including Obama).

We MUST prosecute at least those who approved of the torture policy. Yes, it will be messy. And, yes, it will take an investment of time. But for Obama to speak of our values, but then give these guys a pass, is nothing more than hollow rhetoric, something I was hoping not to see in this pres. And, Obama himself said he was capable of doing more than one thing at a time*****During the civil war, when it was looking bad for the North (Union), an army offical asked Lincoln about a plan to kidnap Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Lincoln replied abosolutely not. He explained, "If we go down, we go down with our values intact." Good advice for Obama, if he wants the term 'values' to mean anything.

You're right I am not grateful. The military spends money on fraudulent wars and then veterans like these buffoons treat everyone as though they are second class to their so called "service". If you don't like America maybe you should all follow your own advice and get out. Find some petty dictator you can suck up to and become a torturer for. I defend my country everyday from the moronic fascists who claim to defend our country.

Everyone keeps asking for my experiences oddly I don't hear anyone else telling us theirs.

Obama is simply following through with his campaign promise of reversing the foreign relations debacle of the Bush Administration. For those critical of Obama for making this a public relations event, note that it was the secrecy of the Bush Administration that made people overly suspicious and critical. From a common sense standpoint, no amount of torture is going to reverse what happened on 9/11, and no amount of torture will prevent another one from happening in the future. If anything, a more favorable public image is our best defense against future terrorist attacks. At least it couldn't be any worse than whatever we were doing pre 9/11.

Darwin you are pathetic! How dare you diss the very men who fought for you so you could have the freedom of speech!! You should be grateful, but you wouldn't know sacrifice if it hit you in the face! You need to move to a socialist country if you like it so much and leave the US alone. We are a proud people with the exception of a few like you and now especially our president. He doesn't have the guts to even stand up for our country. Even yesterday when the Iranian idiot was giving his tirade, Obama sat there and listened and all he could say when it was over is that he was glad he wasn't in office when all the things ahmidijad sad about us. What a narssistic fool. Oh Yeah Obama It's all about you!!!!
Again I say thank you to RAF and andre and otherws who fought for my freedoms!! Thank you for your sacrifice and for putting country before yourselves!!!

The military screws up on 9/11 and somehow I am asked to solve their problems. Way to take responsibility. You screw up, just torture someone and the problem goes away.

I won't talk about my experiences they are none of your business and not really topical.

Whatever your feelings about what some people call "torture," ask yourself this: what good did it do the country to release these memos? If Obama didn't like the techniques, he could have simply stopped employing them without making a PR stunt out of it. Why publicize it? The only certain gain is for terrorists who now know what to expect and will be better trained to resist going forward. That, and Obama got some nice headlines for a few days, meaning it was good for politics.

This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that Obama redacted the parts of the memos that showed the intelligence that was gained from the interrogations! Again, ask yourself why Obama would want the public to know about the techniques used but not the intelligence gained? There is only one plausible answer: it was for purely political purposes. The man is shameful.

"I find it difficult to believe that RAF or you ever saw anything like combat...Killing someone or watching someone being killing is something that is burned in your brain forever."
-
Please tell us about your experiences; your constant tirades declaring ours as not worthy. So, you must surely have your own to tell?

Yes, andro why would you want to protect America? Considering the military's actions on 9/11 I couldn't tell that you were protecting us. You sad and pathetic little man, you prove my point with your dictatorial statements. I find it difficult to believe that RAF or you ever saw anything like combat. Otherwise you wouldn't be so glib. Killing someone or watching someone being killing is something that is burned in your brain forever.

RAF you read only the parts you want to divert the issue and then accuse others of dribbling even though its your inability to read that is the problem.

"With servicemen like you and RAF solving problems"
-
Yes, and we did so despite people like you.

"I can read a field manual when it is free to read online "
-
If you had access to it why have you been blabbering for others to post comments about it? If you have a rhetorical question to make about/from the manual, just make it. Again incoherent on your part.

Yes, I should join an incompetent organization so I can read a field manual when it is free to read online at

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Ma...

With servicemen like you and RAF solving problems no wonder we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Sadly, I was pointing out when torture is used and thought...others would realize that despotism and genocide are bad."
-
Goes back to the dribble and incoherent postings...what you think you said (or) are saying, is not the words others read.

Sadly, I was pointing out when torture is used and thought that maybe RAF and others would realize that despotism and genocide are bad. Evidently, they not only missed the point they overlooked genocide to berate me. We to go.

"Trust me" good one crafty. That's what all military dictators say while they are rounding up the opposition. I don't trust you or 95% of the people in the military. As I said before, what does General Petraeus's anti-insurgency field manual say. Anyone? He is one of the few military people I would trust because he understands the limitations of force.

Torture works? One guy waterboarded 183 times in a month. Another 83 times, after his questioners told their CIA bosses he already told them everything he knew. Seems like they were either sadistic, or just practicing! Once the door is opened to torture where does it end? Wrap a towel around the neck and slam someones head into a wall repeatedly, no wonder over 40 detainees died. I have to wonder what else they did to those prisoners.

Send all our Gitmo prisoners to Spain and see how those sissies deal with them.
I've fought in Iraq on three tours, Seen my friends die. Water boarding, and standing in a box, etc. is nothing compared to what those creeps deserve.
---
--
Abusive interrogations DO WORK. Trust me.
If the wimp who wrote this drivel, had enlisted and served, or had a family member die in New York on 9/11 he would have a whole new outlook.
---
--
The media has a way of twisting a story for the agendas of the powerful. They have made the whole world lose respect for us. Now Obama is pandering to all these loser countries, making us look even worse. Idiot. He's just as stupid as George Doyle.
---
--
To save the lives of many many others, people have to make sacrifices.

What an inconsistent buffoon. In one post you state your criteria of when to support torture "Torture is a cowardly act taken by despotic regimes...The only time such brutality is justified is when it is a by-product of genocide." Then you spin your head around "exorcist style" and state "You really think I was justifying torture?". It is fairly obvious that you not only babble incoherently you also don't read nor remember your own postings.

darwin1 has slipped over the edge.
Has anyone read in the Gazette about the Unclassified report on 'Right-Wing Extremism'?

SA Do you get any of this? You really think I was justifying torture? What did the military teach you? OOO you were something in the military so you're an expert on shooting, killing and torturing people. Currently, you are torturing us by constantly telling us how you have served liberty and freedom by undermining it. Your excuses to save lives are the same excuses tyrants use to imprison those who oppose them. Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

I love how torture is only justified if it fits YOUR agenda Darwin. And just for the record....I wasn't diverting the issue, I was responding to Pharm. As for RAF and I, we have first hand EXPERIENCE and knowledge in regards to warfare, military life, and our mission. YOU HAVE NONE (besides your "select" reading. Social status, you say? I am myself, I am proud to be who I am, and I am not worried about how I am viewed by others, you especially. Next issue, For the third time, I am not trying to "justify" torture...I don't know how many times I have to say that. In fact, I have never even told you if I am for or against torture, you assume that I am for it. What I am for is saving American lives, that is what I am for. That is still my most important mission, and I will continue it until the day I die.

Well darwin1, your getting there in admitting that there is a justification for torture even in your mind. Should we use torture in Sudan to stop the genocide in DARFUR? How many people do you think will disagree with you?

There is nothing tough about taking the easy road of torture. Torture is a cowardly act taken by despotic regimes. During WWII the Japanese tortured Americans. Did it lessen our resolve? No, it only made us want to kill the Japanese more. The only time such brutality is justified is when it is a by-product of genocide.

They will never rise to our standard. We haven't chopped heads off. We haven't denied them medical care. We haven't paraded them through the streets. We haven't made them a show and tell on vidieos. Sometimes I believe people get their idea of torture from the movies and TV programs that glorify it just for the shock value if anything. The way the news media here and around the world is that we are the only nation that does this. We are to feel guilty about protecting our own country. No one really likes or approves of torture but do unto others as they do unto you works both ways. I am more disgusted with those Americans who tear down our country, our government. I am disgusted with those who shed tears for those who kill the innocent because it makes them feel better to blame America. I am disgusted with drive by murders and child molesters. These are the ones who practice cruel and inhuman torture. You've read comments on what people want to do to them and in many cases it is far worse then any torture we have inflicted on the terrorist. We have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to defending America. We can and do stand tall. It is called PRIDE. Not everything is perfect, but we are who we are, all of us and we do not need to bow or apologize. The terrorists need to know this that we will defeat them, but, shooting ourselves in the foot doesn't help.

If torturing one of these creeps will save the life of an AMERICAN it must be done. It could be your son or daughter that dies because these scums were pampered. Some of you people have to toughen up- we don't lie in no dream world here!

We should have probably tortured Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen to find out what they knew. I mean unless you've been waterboarded how do we know you have told us everything you know.

Evidently, the torture slope is the only slope that isn't slippery.

In my view, it's not about being liked or not liked by the other side. It's about knowing what's right and what's wrong and standing by those principles, regardless of what they think of us. If we sink to their level they have succeeded in converting us to their ways. If we are "justified" in doing it to them, then I guess that means they are "justified" in doing it to us. By the way, I have proudly served in the military. Not everyone who has put their life on the line to protect this country sees things the way RAF does. However, I also believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. This happens to be mine.

Talk all you want of high morals and principles but remember the enemy that wants to destroy you, you way of life, your very existance could care less. Yes, this country was founded first to create a place to get away from religious persecution and evolved over the years to the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Freedoms we know take for granted. We set a standard that a large part of the world cannot live upto because they do not believe in the individual right to anything. One must defend against those who want to destroy us and we donot need to help them do it by exposing that, which we may not be proud of, but that which is stopping them from destroying us. Yes, there will be times that we may have to sink to the level of the enemy to get the information we need. We have to keep the upper-hand or we are fighting a loosing battle. In our rush to be liked (we are liked because they like our money) we are to sacrifice our intelligence gathering methods to those who hate us. We are willing to place our national security on the line so that we won't hurt, embarrass the very ones who would do the exact opposite to us. So, sit on your couch, safe and secure while the people who are putting their lives on the line (and it is not just the military) are exposed by YOU and your beliefs that we must treat the killers, murders of innocent people with kid gloves. Let them know that we will fellow the rules that they don't have to. Feel good, that you stood up for your morals and principles as the innocents are killed for their deaths might have been prevented if we let the intelligence personnel do their job. I speak for myself and if it is a choice between getting the information that will save a life or prevent distruction, then, using the tools given and appropriate for the torture, so be it. There are many things in life that are abhorrent, that far exceed the torture of the enemy but occassionally, we have to do that which we donot approve of. Can you deny that everything you've done is something to be approved of? Do you have secrets that everybody needs to know? Voice your opinion, that is one of the freedoms, but use it wisely. Don't let the otherside take it away.

RetiredAirforce, over 40 dead, over 20 listed as "homicide', there was more going on than waterboarding. Once you open the door, human nature takes over. SA, all the outrage in the world over our soldiers treatment doesn`t justify being as bad as the enemy.

Duece way to divert the issue. We aren't talking about how our soldiers are treated this is about torture and its effectiveness. However, you and RAF seem to be more concerned with your social status then with reality.

Sick, sick people defend torture as patriotic. It is against every principle that this country was built on and should be understood as offensive to anyone living in a civilized society.
.
Unfortunately, some Americans seem to prefer becoming savages themselves to protecting our principles. They'll have to answer to their maker someday.

Pharm,
As I already explained to you....I am NOT justifying torture by saying that our enemies use it! I am asking where the outrage is when our soldiers die from a single gunshot to the back of their heads! If you want to know how the waterboarding worked.....ASK OBAMA TO RELEASE THE BLACKED OUT PARTS OF SAID CIA MEMO, since he is so willing to give away everything we have worked so hard to build and collect.

RAF: Agree on the assessment of darwin1. Also, thanks for reminding me about Stars and Stripes.

And she continues to dribble meaningless thoughts...

Yes, everyone Dr Mengele is now a government expert on torture. I sure am glad that experience in a heinous act makes you an expert on morality and more heinous acts. You don't have to join the military or carry a gun to risk your life defending others.

A small example of valor

http://www.stripes.com/heroes/heroes_tes...

“torture is illegal and immoral.”
-
Interesting. The torture everyone in this thread has complained of (waterboarding) is used during the training of our countries elite forces. If it is such a terrible, illegal, and immoral act why have you not protested the government; they do it to the troops you say you support? Why is it when it is called training for our troops, its ok in yours and others eyes? Yet when the same act is performed on a person that wants to kill Americans it is called torture?

“. I…made that comment with the belief…an individual joining the armed services and swearing to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…would actually fight with valor. Evidently I was mistaken…”
-
Reading a text book, newspaper, or watching a war movie on TV will not give you a grasp of valor. Taking an oath, going into a fight, or securing an asset is not valor. Serving for a day or thirty years is not valor. Saluting a lone rifle, empty helmet, and pair of boots is not valor. Valor is surviving the fight. Valor is performing unselfish actions so those with you survive the fight. Valor cannot be trained or given. Valor is earned. I suggest you walk into your local veteran’s service location (Legion post, FVW hall, DAV center) and talk with a few people who have witnessed and been valorous. Until then you will never understand.

usaret, he thinks the military and everyone who works there is welfare; just like a bridge from Govt money so it is welfare.

darwin1. RAF served and served proudly. What have you done? Or, is serving in the Armed Forces of the United States beneath you? All you seem to do is complain.

I have no pitty on those terrorist. I say torture and do whatever else they have to do to obtain info. God Bless our men and women in our military, thank you all for your great service and for our freedom that you all fought for

Support waterboarding!! It works

Thank you, SA. That's the best point yet. It's no wonder that the St. Petersburg Times will be out of business soon. Let's hope this propaganda is gone soon.

SA, torture is illegal and immoral. Just because your enemy uses it doesn`t justify it. Do you want to fly a plane into a building because they did? The Russians used torture on their own citizens in the 50`s and 60`s. Lo and behold, every one admitted to treason or worse, and by the thousands were killed or sent to the gulags. When the torture leads to death, homicide, verified by government released autopsy reports, that makes it even worse. You don`t have to be a liberal or conservative to be against torture and for the rule of law. It is a non-partisan issue.

Well, lakennedy, pharm, and darwin1,
As an individual who HAS been trained in various kinds of interrogation and interview, I ACTUALLY can speak to the effectiveness of both. You base your decision on which tactic to use after you analyze your source of information. As released in the CIA report today, Waterboarding, used twice, was used on the most dangerous and knowledgeable sources captured during the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom. In addition, the report that a man was closed in a box with stinging insects was false...the memo simply stated that they talked to an enemy combatant about doing that to him in the interrogation, because the combatant was known to be afraid of stinging insects. You have to use leverage to gain information, and use it tactfully with rapport, based on the elements presented to you. You determine the detainees personality and knowledge, and determine your steps accordingly. In addition, with the exception of RAF, none of you have probably ever been on a foreign battlefield, or have had to try and collect information that could save your brothers in arms, or American lives. It has become a media myth (to which you say RAF and I are just simpletons watching FOX and listening to RUSH) that enhanced interrogation tactics do not work. I highly doubt that YOU have read multiple field manuals from around the globe on interrogation and tactics, and read about the effectiveness of different methods. In fact, within most field manuals, there are forms of "interrogation" that the US would never even consider talking about. I doubt you have a broad based knowledge of military tactics and history. In fact, I am pretty sure I have heard every one of your arguments today on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and every other liberal news media outlet there is (which is about 75% of news media available to the public). In response to my promotion of "an endless cycle of revenge", I am not advocating torture in anyway, or promoting the idea of waterboarding in the future, and I am not using the examples of Jessica Lynches platoon or American citizens that have been beheaded as a means of seeking revenge. I am simply wondering why you never speak of your outrage in regards to the way OUR POWs, soldiers, and citizens are treated after capture. When US citizens and soldiers are captured, the majority die....period, and that has been true long before the most recent wars have taken place.

Finally, I would like to know how Cynthia Card and Alfred McCoy became experts in torture. Reading and harvesting certain parts of documents and investigation to promote your side of the argument does not make you an expert. It does make you a UW professor. As a former student, and top 1% graduate of UW, I know.

RAF, I did not say or imply the term “valor” was part of the oath taken when enlisting in our military. I only made that comment with the belief that an individual joining the armed services and swearing to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” would actually fight with valor. Evidently I was mistaken, so thanks for correcting me. I also did not say or imply that our enemies would or should “like” us. As long as there are those who believe the ideology of freedom and liberty are worth fighting for and those who feel threatened by that ideology, there will be conflicts. Not everyone fights fair but that shouldn’t mean we must lower our standards. If you don’t adhere to honorable principles then you become your enemy. Torture and/or inhumane treatment is never appropriate and should never be tolerated.

Sadly, RAF does not realize that the country he fought for believes in liberty and not freedom. Evidently, he was fighting for his freedoms but not others. While those planes were flying into the buildings what was the military doing? They were trying to figure out if it was a simulation or real. Is this what we should expect if the Russians invade or another terrorist attacks occurs. Then the military will be able to torture more people. Evidently, it is the victims fault he is being tortured.

We do have a voluteer army? No one made them join. They made a choice and have a responsibility and took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I would have thought you of all people would understand that. But evidently you think the Constitution is just a simulation of liberty and freedom.

Your mind reading skills are inept. One of the greatest strengths our country has is everyone is entitled to free speech and with that comes an opinion. Your retort of fighting with valor is something those in the profession of arms do not say. There is nothing valorous in being sent into a fire fight, ambushed by a road side bomb, or killed at a check point by a car bomb. The asinine argument is to pretend that holding our forces to a make believe set of one side only rules will make others (the ones that already hate us) like us. How well did those rules work before the idiots smashed planes into our buildings? So continue to use your freedom this country allows and exercise your right to free speech and generate opinions you believe are correct. I suggest you retire from mind reading, you are not very good at it.

If we were only fighting for survival our tactics would be different, thediplomat, but we are fighting for more than simply survival. I venture to guess that andre_, RAF and others believe we are fighting for freedom, honor and the “American way of life”; in other words, principles we consider valuable to our quality of life. Those fighting against us do not know freedom or honor. They chose to use innocent bystanders as shields, bomb indiscriminately and use whatever tactics they feel necessary to claim victory. What they don’t understand is at the end of it all they have gained nothing but despise. If we authorize and condone our Military or Intelligence Agencies to engage in “torture”, what have we won? It is a proven fact that torture does not produce more reliable information. In fact, most often the opposite is true, lies are told in an effort to stop the abuse. There are ways of obtaining valid information without subjecting human beings to inhumane cruelty. It's a disgrace to this country that prisoners of war were killed during interrogation sessions. If we expect others to live civilly then we should do the same. It is a positively asinine argument to justify our use of torture because the enemy employs dishonorable tactics in their fight against us. That’s the same logic a 7 year old might use. If the principles this country was founded on mean anything then torture should never be tolerated and those that authorize its use should be punished. That’s not fighting with one hand tied behind your back, thediplomat. Its called fighting with valor. Ask RetiredAirForce what that means, although I'm not sure he remembers judging by his views on waterboarding.

"We are suppose to be better than that" is why these wars last so darn long now. The existence the fallacy that laser-guided weapons and anti-torture movements all give the enemy the power to play the press to its advantages. If this was the carpet bombing days, guerillas wouldn't be using women and children as shields. People forget that it is still war. It is a pure evil and trying to play that game with one hand tied behind your back becomes difficult even if you are a giant.

Here it is plain and simple, George W. Bush and members of his administration violated the U. S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention. Those responsible for authorizing and engaging in acts of torture, as it is defined under the Geneva Convention, are guilty of war crimes. Afterall, it was Mr. Bush that exclaimed "we are at war" with the terrorists. Torture does nothing to protect the U.S. or it's citizens, but it does make anyone who condones it less human. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of the truth. There is NO justification for torture. NONE! The U.S. metes out just punishment based on laws enacted to deal with all types of violations. That's how civilized societies work. Any less and we are no better than those who engage in efforts to bring down our society. Members of the past administration violated the law and should be punished. No excuses.

Torture is not proven to work, and we are supposed to be better than that.

Torture is a necessity of war. Trying to be above your enemy is useless and costs more lives.

The report does state the administration condoned torture.

RetiredAirforce, you misread what I wrote. I admitted "homicde" wasn`t in the report. When I said the torture led to homicide, those were my words. The government released autopsy reports do attribute over 20 detainee deaths to "homicide."

The brutality of dictatorial regimes and religious zealots goes without saying. Brutality is NOT an effective weapon. Does General Petreus' insurgency field manual call for brutality and torture as an effective weapon against insurgency? I don't think so.

SA... your argument only leads to endless cycles of revenge and more violence. You kill us, we kill you and after awhile one side just wants the other side dead.

Look, if what Bush did was right then why doesn't he be a man and stand up and defend himself, articulate his actions, explain to the voters in charge of this democracy how and why he thinks it worked.

"the report just states that the Bush administration condoned torture. That torture led to deaths listed as homicides."
-
This also is not in the report.

Pharm I was simply disputing your post that said “the Senate Armed Services Committee Report released in December …” I provided a link to the report dated 12 Dec 2008. What you stated “detainees deaths as homicides” is not in the report. The word homicide is not even listed in the report. There are several links to non-news sources on the web that make the same claim you do, but the report speaks for itself...it is not in the report.

RetiredAirForce, you are right, the report just states that the Bush administration condoned torture. That torture led to deaths listed as homicides.

If you are saying the autopsy reports are false because the ACLU has published them, you would have to think they DID the autopsies. The administration OK`ed torture, detainees died, I don`t think ACLU doctors were sent in to do the autopsies, do you?

I think it would help if both RAF and pharm were looking at who/what published their respective material...
+

action.aclu/org/torturefoia/released/102405 see autopsy reports listing detainees deaths as homicides

"The Senate Armed Services Committee Report, released in December lists many detainees deaths as "homicides". I guess we did more than waterboarding."
-
Why is it the word "homicide" does not appear anywhere in the report titled "SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY" released 12 Dec 2008? Answer: because it was not true.
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publica...

The Senate Armed Services Committee Report, released in December lists many detainees deaths as "homicides". I guess we did more than waterboarding.

And since you're so sure, please provide actual proof to the effectiveness that you speak of.

Are you suggesting that because other countries did it, we should to? I think you should consider the dangers that accompany that thought process. When we start behaving on that same level, we won't have anything to say about it when our soldiers are tortured.

We, as Americans, are always held to a higher standard compared to the rest of the world. Our definition of POW's under the Geneva Convention are recognized soldiers and combatants serving under a country's flag, and recognized by that country. These enemy combatants are in limbo because they do not serve in a uniform for a country, and are serving an ideology. No war will ever be won due to a country surrendering anymore. There will be no white flags, only insurgencies. However, to say that torture didn't work, and to release documents pertaining to the CIA programs, would be detrimental to all parties. Contrary to popular belief, the United States got great cooperation from nearly every country it asked in it's efforts to capture enemy combatants, high value targets, and go after terror cells. The United States and Bush's policies WERE highly effective in minimizing the threat to the United States. To call waterboarding torture, and claim the United States should be investigated and prosecuted for war crimes is asinine. Everyone belly aches over two cases of waterboarding, while they turn a blind eye to the rest of Jessica Lynch's platoon, who were executed with shots to the head after being captured at the beginning of the Iraq war. And don't forget any foreigner or soldier captured by Al Qaeda, they lose their heads on national TV. But of course, we don't worry about what they do, because they are doing that to our soldiers because of what Bush did....right? Good grief people. Someday, when the time is right, this classified and sensitive information will be released, and as Obama has been finding out after taking over the presidency, much of it was extremely necessary.

I think you should consider what sort of message that would be sending...

SG brings up an interesting point. Under the Geneva convention opposing forces are suppose to wear colors to identify themselves. If they don't they can be executed as spies. Is this not true?

However, doing what SG proposes generally doesn't send the message you intended it to. Usually it just hardens the insurgents to fight to the death.

Torturing "suspected" terrorists is counter-productive. They should be put against the nearest wall and shot immediately on capture. Might send a message, and it would definitely keep them from participating in terroristic activities again.

lakennedy - I saw it on the BBC while living abroad, but I'm sure you can rent it by now...
*
RAF - I guess I could be reading your paraphrased response wrong, but isn't he simply pointing out the imbalance in the "two sides to every story", ie, the US DOD has more influence spreading "its" side of the story to the US public than a tortured Afghan civilian?
Again, I'm not aware of the interview... If you actually see the interview, he makes almost every point most of you are arguing about - we have tortured, we shouldn't torture, it doesn't provide desirable results, it hurts national security, it's not a matter of a "few bad apples" , and not a criticism of our military, rather the poor planning and dirty policies at the time... with all of this coming from interviews of the actual troops on the ground, involved in detainee deaths at Bagram and Abu Ghraib...

Excellent point. The definition of what should be considered torture has been debated endlessly. What do you think?

"Is there any empirical evidence to support the use of torture?"
-
If there was ANY real repeatable way to get correct information from people it would already be in use. There are many people that no mater what is done will never tell the truth just as there are weaker people who could break in minutes. Do I condone shoving bamboo pieces under finger nails, no. But to leave out a possibility of gathering information in a time of need in a manner that does no physical harm, IMHO, is wrong. To some sleep deprivation is also torture so who gets to draw the line and where is it drawn?

I am sorry if it seems as though I am name calling, however, when someone refers to the use of waterboarding as being part of the "real world", I find it offensive. It has NO place in a country founded on the principles of liberty and justice for all. Isn't the point of liberty to allow the guilty to go free rather than imprison the innocent. Isn't this the price we pay for that liberty?

Intelligence gathering requires that the information being gathered is honest and trustworthy otherwise it is worthless. I have seen enough cases of coerced confessions to know that you don't even have to torture people to get them to tell you what you want to hear. It doesn't take that long to break someone down through the use of sensory deprivation and there is no physical harm. Again, though this goes back to the type of information being obtained. Do you want the truth or what you want to hear?

Is there any empirical evidence to support the use of torture?

Too often this seems to be an issue the right latches onto to once again question the patriotism of the left and reinforce the supremacy of the military in our government and society. If its good enough for Navy Seals why not everyone else?

JanesvilleNow...I haven't seen that documentary, where can I get it?

darwin and andre: I'm not trying to offend you, and am definitely not the moderator of this blog, but do you think you two could exchange e-mails or phone numbers so that your idiotic name calling and other three year old behavior could be left out of this discussion? Actually, pretty much every discussion you've both been involved in has ended up with you two teasing each other like children...

andre_pansy, Good god, I never said you support torture I said you justified it. Please try reading S-L-O-W-L-Y.

Interesting you brought up that movie. In an interview, the director, Alex Gibney, was asked what he thought of journalists who strive for objectivity and he answered [paraphrased] “I think that the search for objectivity is pointless…the search for "balance" in every story is also misguided. Sometimes the truth is unbalanced…filmmakers and viewers should both have their own mental skew adjusters. Then they can see what's really going on.”---- He has done great work, I thought, with who killed the electric car. But, after reading his belief in objectivity it makes me question his documentaries.

Some of you seem to think any condemnation of torture is a direct disrespectful criticism of our men and women in uniform-which is simply not the case. Put a cap on the emotional defensive outbursts and engage in coherent discussion and rational thinking. We like to keep painting pictures of beheadings in our minds to somehow justify our own inhumane behavior.
*
I invite you to watch the documentary "Taxi to the Darkside" as you seem to need to hear it from the horses mouth - those in our military who engaged in the deplorable acts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
*
Unfortunately many lower level troops had been scapegoated for following orders sent from higher level dod officials. It's also unfortunate that documentaries like this are seen widely throughout the world, and unheard of in our country.

Retired,

but none (other than bombed by military aircraft or shot by military sniper)of those options are legal or morally right. The US should not condone or participate in any of those actions (other than bombed by military aircraft or shot by military sniper).

RAF? I'm pretty sure that only waterboarding fits the governments definition of torture. I would be willing to consider the cutting off of the head, but it's a stretch...Sniping is not torture. It's killing.

What is more "torturous" being shot by a sniper, beheaded by a terrorist on camera for your family to see, bombed by an aircraft, blown up by a road side bomb, targeted by unmanned aerial vehicle, killed by person strapped with a bomb killing everyone within ten feet and injuring everyone from 10-50 feet, or being water boarded? If given a choice of all, the line for water boarding would have everyone in it; at the end you still walk away and are not physically hurt.

According to U.S. law, waterboarding is illegal. It is very clear. Laws aren't created just to be followed when it's easy, they are just as important, if not more so, when it's hard to follow them. Here is a section I've found to be interesting taken from the Washington University Law Review regarding waterboarding:
+
"Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18] Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]

Found at: http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions...
+
I completely understand your point. I agree that it's easy to see when waterboarding or other forms of torture could be seen as "justified." The thing is, they never are. The ends never justify those means...

According to existing law and Justice Department rulings, waterboarding has been proscribed for several years now - except, that is, for the thousands of U.S. servicemen who've been subjected to it by the U.S. military as part of their training. Are those officers who train our Navy Seals among those who torture? This is silly

Should this pathetic inquiry include the relevant Democratic congressional leadership for intelligence - including current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Jay Rockefeller and former Sen. Bob Graham - were briefed on Abu Zubaydah,Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks?

given the circumstances at the time, I think the decision to waterboard these three men was right and certainly defensible.

whoanellie: Since you assume those against torture know little about it, please cite some evidence you have showing it works. Please. Have you read any of the U.S.S.C. Justices opinions regarding the granting of Habeus Corpus to Guantanamo detainees? Have you read anything at all regarding this issue? Have you listened to someone like John McCain, who has been tortured, opinions regarding the subject? It's easy for you to sit in the comfort of your home, and assume that these tactics work. Imperical evidence is against you, and so is morality. It doesn't matter if other people will torture, the U.S. doesn't adhere to those tactics, they are beneath us.
+

We are all responsible for protecting the United States...some more directly than others.
+
If you review the arguments for and against torture, you'll find both to be very interesting. UW Madison's Cynthia Card and Alfred McCoy are both considered to be experts on the issue, and they both make some very interesting arguments. Alan Dershowitz also has a very compelling argument for "Torture Warrants." Read his ideas at:
+
http://www.alandershowitz.com/publicatio...
+
I've been in classes when this topic has been discussed at length. While sitting in the comfort of a classroom, I find the arguments against torture to hold more weight. That being said, I guarantee you that if my son was in danger, and I knew that someone held information that would guarantee his safety, I would probably through all reason out the window. I'd definitely be singing a different tune.
+
Make no mistake, when reason is taken into account, all evidence shows that torture does not produce. That point aside, I'd also like to point out the ramifications torture has on society as a whole. Think long and hard about it. After reading accounts of people who have been tortured, a lot of them who were innocent, I've come to the conclusion that there are worst things than death. One particular survivor refers to it as "soul death." When you torture someone, you assume they have the information you need. Or you want them to admit to something. The problem is, if I'm in enough pain I'll admit to anything, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. You assume someone is guilty when you torture, and that just isn't how we do business here in the U.S. I'm not interested in other countries philosophy, I think it's awful that others do torture, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards. As Americans, we've always set the standard. We've never lowered to one. I don't think we should start now.

You are justifying the torture of someone. You should try waterboarding yourself. These techniques are useless because if you are captured your comrades have to assume you have talked. They don't sit around going gee wiz ya think Mohammed held out? The BBC did an excellent series call Guantanamo Diaries and demonstrated how sensory deprivation is more effective. In sensory deprivation detainees lose all track of time and think they have been held much longer than usual. However, this still runs the risk of the detainee telling you what you want to hear. It isn't intelligence if you don't know if its true or not.

Way to pimp out liberty and freedom.

Neo-fascists stop watching FOX News and listening to Rush. Try read something intelligent for a change and dragging our country down.

Torture is illegal, and it doesn`t work. Ask John McCain.

You're absolutely right Nero--We need to love our enemies. As they show no issue or remorse with blowing up, beheading and maiming innocent people--we just need to get in there, give them a big hug and ask them to please re-evaluate their plan to exterminate us and our culture from this planet. Maybe we can come up with a happy little song to tie us all together--something along the lines of the "We are the world" project of the 80's....Possibly send all of the proceeds to the families of the victims that had their executions videotaped and broadcasted on line in an effort to ease their suffering......

Without reading a single post I will predict the same religious people who want to deny gay people the right to a Civil Union or Wedding supported the torture done to human being during the Bush administration.

Nero - Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you!

whoanellie: who are "they"? The Saudi hijackers on 9/11? The Afghans with whom we fought against the Russians in the 1980s? The Iraqis with whom we fought against the Iranians in the 1980s? The Palestinians who kill Israelis? The IRA who kill British officers? The Sandanistas? The Shining Path? Who are "they"???

Torture (your claim) and terror (what the scattered and very insignificant groups opposed to the United States wish to achieve) are two extremely different methodologies.

> I seriously doubt that these people that were imprisoned were innocent victims that out country decided to pick up just for the heck of it

You do not read a wide variety of news, I take it.

> Why should we show them any more respect than they show us?

In Biblical terms, it's called turning the other cheek.

From a secular basis, I would call it leadership. Frankly, such behavior should be done out of due deference to the foundational ideas of our country.

I encourage you to read up on the actual military tribunal (with some of the best defense lawyers available) of eight German saboteurs (Operation Pastorius) who landed at two separate points on the East Coast with ~$100,000 cash and quite a bit of high explosives during the height of WWII.

It is a telling tale: an expedient and by all accounts (particularly the trial transcript) a fair trial resulting in an expedient execution of six of the eight; the other two were granted Presidential pardons and were immediately deported to Germany at war's end.

I mention Ex parte Quirin not as some historical curiosity but because it is the strongest legal basis for the military tribunals which should be taking place at Gitmo.

Compare the original case to the conviction rate for some 3,000 people arrested as "enemy combatants". I believe that it currently stands at two. That is simply pathetic. There are currently ~250 prisoners remaining at Gitmo, only 17 are charged with war crimes. Roughly 65 have been released without any charge. For those who remain, if there is sufficient evidence, why is there a delay to try the cases?

Not too surprising that the first couple posts back torture. Sad. But not surprising. All the revenge in the world will not undo the hurt of 9-11. Those poor souls will still be dead, those towers collapsed. In the words of those better than I:

“That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.”
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
-- Jesus Christ from Matthew 5:38-45

We cannot defeat this enemy through strength of arms alone. If we stoop to their level, they've won a major victory. We need to be better than them. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard morally, ethically and legally. That means we have to hold ourselves accountable for actions taken by our military and intelligence agencies.

Torture is wrong regardless of how important it might seem at the time. We know it. We've signed treaties that condemn its use not only when it is convenient to to do so, but always.

right on proartist...

I agree that it is easy to sit in your little chair and make assumptions on the part of something you know nothing about. They don't deserve our respect after what they do to the untold thousands of people in their own country! They would not hesitate to torture us in a New York minute. Obama has countinually weakened our country as he walked across the stages in other countries last week. other countries should know that we won't put up with their antics and that we will fight back. But now they think we are a bunch of sorry weaklings cowering in a corner saying "we promise not to do it again, please don't hurt us!!!! Get in the real world!

916WI: Agreed....."These people must be made to reap what they sow........" And, when the U.S. includes torture, imprisonment of the innocent, and terror around the world as part of it's arsenal, we too will reap what we sow.

+1 jdtrucker......I seriously doubt that these people that were imprisoned were innocent victims that out country decided to pick up just for the heck of it.....The terrorists that we are fighting against have no issue with the torture and mutilation of both those directly involved with the conflict and the innocent alike. Why should we show them any more respect than they show us? Are we suppose to just give them a hand slap, tell them not to kidnap/kill anyone else and then send them on their merry way??? The author of this article is living in fantasy land.....Maybe if one of his friends or family members was a victim of these terrorists he would come back to reality and realize that times like these require that difficult decisions be made. These people must be made to reap what they sow........

You have a lot of nerve to sit back in your quiet safe little town and whine like a baby for real mem who have to do the dirty hard work of protecting our republic and your sorry excuse of a an American. Have you ever been in Iraq?? or some of the other pathetic holes in the 3rd world. Wake up.. Don't be so naive. Even Obama know enough not to mess with the sword who really protects this country..